posted
To stop Hillary, draft Condi This would guarantee our first female president (Condi vs. Hillary). Think either would make it? Or it might be more feasible to have them as VP candidates. I look for Rudy vs. Hillary in the 06 Senate race first though! I’m holding out for Bill Frist or Newt Gingrich for the GOP. Everyone thought Dean was a shoe in for the DNC but you never know who might come out on top. To far off anyway.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Newt Gingrich or Bill Frist is my choice for Pres in 08, I can guarantee you I will be voting for whoever the Democrat is, no matter what. That would be a sad state of affairs for us Republicans.
posted
Hey, here's a novel idea. How about we quit worrying about people's gender and go back to thinking about who would make a good president. Who gives a flying explative if this match up would guarantee a female president or not?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people who think that Hillary would win because they think a lot of people would vote for a female president. Seriously.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, it is a mildly amusing exercise to wonder which will be president first: a woman or an african american.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why Rice is such a dream Repub: she's a black woman. Who apparently plays the piano really, really well. She wins that particular game of demographic calculus.
posted
I guess she'll have an advantage over Clinton, then, when she goes on late night to play a musical instrument.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 06 race for Hillary will be very interesting if it is against Rudy. He’s so popular now. Plus he’s a New Yorker, not a transplant.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, one of the sad political casulaties of the war was my love for Condoleeza Rice. *mourns*
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could see Condi as a VP candidate in 08. Anyone think a McCain/Rice ticket would have broad appeal?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of the people, "Who can see Rice as "blank" actually like her as a candidate. I don't even like her as a babysitter or a public school teacher.
posted
I liked her - I liked her because she's smart, determined, focused, and plays the piano beautifully. I don't like her now because her loyalty to President Bush trumped her brain and integrity, apparently. But I do like her still for all the original reasons.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, really have no opinion as I don't have enough information to form one. Sorry, about politics I am tired and irritated so I shut off about it. We can't be interested and involved in every single thing and expect to be excellent at anything.
I don't know why I'm even in this thread, except to make jabbing remarks.
But, I'd like to point out that your comparison between babysitter/public school teacher and administrator of national concerns is not very good. It takes quite a different skill set for those.
Frankly, who would want either Clinton to babysit or teach their kids? Or the George Bushes, or Reagan, or Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Al Gore?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben, honestly neither do I; I just wonder how well they would do if it did.
Irami, not me, but seeing someone as a candidate is different than liking her. I do not like Hilary either; I just think it less likely that she will be part of the 08 race. I sure as hell would not vote for either of them.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm pretty sure I know Bush better than his old friend, close advisor and work wife does. Of course I think that - why else would I say what I did? It couldn't possibly be because I actually did pay attention to the politics and what was happening and therefore dare to have an opinion.
What the crap, Ami? Direct the jabbing remarks somewhere else.
[ February 09, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, I'd like to point out that your comparison between babysitter/public school teacher and administrator of national concerns is not very good. It takes quite a different skill set for those.
I don't know if that's true.
quote:Frankly, who would want either Clinton to babysit or teach their kids? Or the George Bushes, or Reagan, or Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Al Gore?
The thing is, if Barack Obama was my kid's history teacher or babysitter, I'd feel comfortable and lucky. I've seen both Clinton's speak, and again, they could color a school lesson with interesting hues. Barbara Bush I'd trust, also, but Gore, Cheney, Quayle, Reagan, and W. Bush I be wary of, with cause.
_______
I think that there are education and character components unique to leading a democracy.
quote:And maybe she wouldn't even be where she was if Bush wasn't there, anyway.
So? Assuming kat is right about loyalty beating brains and integrity, how is it a reason? Loyalty is telling the person the hard truth, and no one can possibly owe enough to elevate sacrificing one's integrity from an excuse to a reason.
posted
Dean has locked up the DNC chairmanship, all his rivals have dropped out of the race. There are many in the Democratic leadership considering a run, but I think Biden is the name being bandied about the most. I don't know if Condi has a chance, she's the Republican version of Hillary at the moment, and there's no way she could come close to making the claim she is a uniter and not a divider. I think being black and a woman will cost her some rural republican votes. I've heard Jeb Bush's name for president in 08, but I dont think anyone takes that seriously either.
McCain should run. He has the best chance of winning. For the democrats, I wouldn't mind seeing Carl Levin run. But in 2012 I'd love to see Barrack Obama run. He'll fire up the party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've heard Jeb Bush's name for president in 08, but I dont think anyone takes that seriously either.
I do, more seriously than a McCain nomination.
quote: Giuliani had a chance based on his popularity
Emphasis on the word "had." G has too many publicized skeletons from his closet that might make the Republicans look bad on the moral high ground. Same goes for Newt. You can argue that they might be effective politicians, but you can never convince me about their upstanding moral values.
Many people have overlapping skills, but I still think there are quite different skills to being a politician and administrator and someone who cares for children.
An interesting lecturer does not necessarily make a very good babysitter or grade school teacher.
Kat,
I don't know why you took that as a personal insult. I was simply pointing out that you don't know more of the picture than Rice does, and so may not be qualified to make a judgement on why she has acted as she did. And I'm hardly claiming any qualification for myself, either. I can think of several scenarios where she is acting with integrity, several others where she is a power grabbing bleep, and lots of in between.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the Rebublican Party Platfrom they are pro life: Promoting a Culture of Life As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
posted
No I guarentee the 2008 election will be Hilary Clinton v. Jeb Bush and Jeb will probably win....even though he is probably worse than his brother....
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I opposed Irami in this particular thread too. I've opposed many, many others and agreed with them at other times. In fact, this is the first time in a long time I think I've addressed a point you've made. Your particular words just happened to come above the radar enough for me to feel like saying something this time. But it wasn't you, it was something you said that made me react.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take bets on that, but I doubt it. I really don't think Hillary will run for President, but i DO think we will see her name on there as VP, to set her up for the next election afterwards. She needs more time to soften her image and make herself pallatable to the people, and everyone knows that.
Jeb has been rocked left and right by charges of incompetence and mishandling in Florida, especially with the election scandal four years ago. He has even less experience than George, and doesn't even have a faux military service record to fall back on. His electability will depend greatly on what happens in the next two years, but right now I'd have to say I doubt he could lock up the GOP candidacy.
If I had to make a guess at the 2008 election I'd say Joe Biden vs Bill Frist. And Biden will win that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you only spoke when you knew everything, you'd never talk at all. Save the civic lessons for someone who wants to hear them from you."
Katie, rein it in, 'k? I just got done sending a long E-mail to somebody about how you're really a nice person. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Added: I don't think I am nice, though. I think I am many and most wonderful things, but I really don't think nice (in the docile, passive sense) is one of them. I'm not trying to be mean to Ami, I just want her to stop. criticizing. me.
[ February 09, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine that Condi would steal very much of the Democratic vote. Almost any time I read about a black Republican public figure, I come across comments--letters, editorials, and so forth--to the effect that said figure is unrepresentative/a traitor by not being a Democrat and that Republican goals are inherently offensive to blacks.
Oh well....I'm not all that big a Condi fan myself.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I think that republican goals are inherently offensive to human dignity. I don't have much else. I mean, I have enough money to get buy, but I don't have enough to let my hatred of taxes overwhelm my sense of dignity.
posted
I don't see Giuliani winning, he is prochoice. You can be a mayor, or even a senator in the party and be prochoice (heck, Powell made it to sec state), but I don't seeing a prochoice candidate getting the pres nomination.
McCain is getting to old to run, plus I really think he would have a hard time locking in a nomination. If he had the nomination, I think he would have a strong chance at winning the election, since he would bring in democrats...but I just don't see him getting the nomination. A VP spot would be possible, but I really think McCain likes where he is right now. He has a lot of power on both sides of the fence, and a VP spot would restrict him a bit.
Frist is a strong possibility. He would have to work on his speech making ability (I didn't think he did a good job at the convention). Of course people have teased Bush about his ability to make speeches, but he does do a good job of getting people to listen to him...I'm not sure that Frist could do that. He does have time to work on it though.
Jeb Bush. He said that he won't run in the next election, and I believe him. He is a popular governor, and I think he would win again in Florida if term limits didn't prohibit it. However, I think that people would be nervous about electing another Bush right after W, and I think he knows that. If he were to be elected, 3 out of the last 4 presidents would be from the same family. I just don't think it would sit well with people. Besides, he is young enough to wait.
Powell: I would be shocked if he made a run. He has made it clear that he really doesn't want to be that active in government (his wife doesn't want it either). Plus, he is also prochoice which would be a problem.
Condi: I think she has a good shot, and that she will likely go for it. She would have a much easier time capturing the repub nomination than Clinton would have capturing the dem nomination. A lot will depend on how she handles herself as sec state.
Of course a lot could change between now and then. Both parties will have to really work to put out strong candidates. The republicans because some people will think that the republican party as been in power for to long, and so they will have to work very hard to make sure they have very strong candidates to show why they should remain in power. For the democrats this next election is a must win, or they risk loosing any power in the government, and giving the republicans power to override a filibuster if the next president is a republican with coat tails.
posted
Okay, Lady Jane, here you go. There is a rule of Greek tragedy, that whenever the hero seeks to do the will of a God, since the Gods do not like each other, the rest of the Gods are going to gang up and plot and bring that hero down. It's one of the nuances of polytheism that gets lost in modern storytelling. The moral of the lesson is this, in many actions, for every holy upside, there is an equally holy down side, or, the beauty and fidelity of Paris' love for Helen, a gift given to Aphrodite, led to Athena and Hera bringing down Troy.
This is from Jay's link:
quote:We are going after terrorists wherever they plot and plan and hide, changing the old course of pinprick strikes that did little to get at the root of terrorism. We eliminated many of al Qaeda’s key leaders and put the world on notice that nations that train, harbor, or finance terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
This doesn't take individual dignity or sovereignty seriously. I actually think that white Americans, especially men, have a hard time fully understanding this problem. There is something about being a party of an entrenched majority that makes potential offenses against minorities a little less vivid. That some people may be innocent, and should be able to avail themselves of the individual rights isn't a vicious issue. Sure, it's an issue, but it doesn't hold sway. The above policy is a doctrine that innocent people are going to be killed or otherwise inconvenienced if we believe-- and our judgment on any level is not perfect-- that they, or a state that they are a citizen of, plot with, plan or hide terrorists. It countenances breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.
Private security accounts is a similar issue. If a few senior citizens lose out, well, so be it. School choice isn't really about making sure all children are educated well. It's making sure the children with knowledgable and aggressive parents get a good education for their kids, those who aren't similarly blessed, well, so be it. We can't afford take the needs of those kids seriously because it's inefficient.
I think this attitude belies human dignity, but I know a lot of dudes who think that we have to break a few eggs to get an omelet.
posted
I suppose that to my way of thinking it's at least equally offensive to human dignity to passively allow many "eggs" to be broken rather than break a smaller number ourselves.
I was thinking about the death penalty last night--there was an article in USA Today about a nun who opposed it and who has just finished a second book about it. The implied argument against seemed to be that we become guilty of the deaths of anyone innocent who is executed by mistake. It occurred to me that maybe in a way, she was right. If by accidentally executing a few innocent people along with the guilty, we prevent a larger number of people from being (purposely) murdered--well, perhaps we are taking the would-be murderers' guilt on ourselves. Removing the blood from their hands and bearing it on ours.
And that sounded like a singularly Christian thing to do.
posted
You are thinking, Mabus, and I don't think people think enough.
quote:If by accidentally executing a few innocent people along with the guilty, we prevent a larger number of people from being (purposely) murdered--well, perhaps we are taking the would-be murderers' guilt on ourselves.
Here is the problem. This is some sort of wierd aggregation. It's empiricist. It's english. It's part of our intellectual tradition, it came over on the mayflower. But it remains that we can't aggregate the indignity of killing an innocent person. It really is that simple. There are very smart people with fancy models that try to abstract this indignity to some symbol that behaves like a number, then go about manipulating these numbers as if the worth of an innocent life can be accounted for on a balance sheet, but it remains inappropriate, no matter how pervasive this way of strategizing is, we can't aggregate the indignity of killing an innocent person.
posted
I think I would rather see Dean as a president who is a democrat over Hilary. I really dislike Dean's stance on issues but I feel that he shows passion and excitement in his speeches. I did not think the infamous yell the media made such a hoopla was a big deal at all, I actually thought it was great. I would pick Dean over Kerry as the president any day.
However, I think Guliani is a bit to liberal for my tastes in a republican candidate. I do like McCain he would get my vote in a heart beat, plus I think he would most likely pick a good republican running mate. I really think McCain would make a great president.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The above policy is a doctrine that innocent people are going to be killed or otherwise inconvenienced if we believe-- and our judgment on any level is not perfect-- that they, or a state that they are a citizen of, plot with, plan or hide terrorists. It countenances breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.
This is also the policy of the Democratic Party, last I'd heard, Irami.
i.e. nations that harbor, finance, or otherwise assist international terrorists will be responded to with military force if they do not eventually comply with our (American) will on the matter.
The difference on this issue is only a matter of a small degree: how much proof we need, how much international agreement there is, and how imminent the threat must be perceived to be before we act. And it really is a small degree.
One has to look only to the voting records of the Congress to see that for themselves. When the Democratic party is specifc about how much more proof they wanted-and they rarely, if ever, are (it's always just, "We didn't have enough, or we should've waited a little while longer), the extra time / conviction / agreement desired isn't much.
This is not to say I'm a Republican, which I am not. Although I am a white American male, and I resent your frequent racist remarks about white American males, and I'm always surprised by how little angry response there is to them). This is simply to point out that, in my opinion by your own words, you shouldn't be able to respect Democrats, either.
Or does the indignity of killing an innocent human being lessen with the reasonable certainty the killer had while doing it of his noble motives?
So on what other issues are Republican goals offensive to human dignity (and let's not gild the lily here, why not just use the word loathesome?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Private security accounts is a similar issue. If a few senior citizens lose out, well, so be it. School choice isn't really about making sure all children are educated well. It's making sure the children with knowledgable and aggressive parents get a good education for their kids, those who aren't similarly blessed, well, so be it. We can't afford take the needs of those kids seriously because it's inefficient.
As for these...
Senior citizens are already losing out. Social Security payments are minimal, based on expenses at that age. Find me a SC who is living on SS payments alone, and I'll find in the same person a destitute old man / woman. The DNC's policy on SS apparently is to leave the problem for later on, when it will be worse.
This is not to say I'm a fan of the vague reports given regarding the Bush Admin's personal account plan, or even a fan of what I think it will be-simply because I think it will be impossible without really screwing lots of people right now, either beneficiaries of SS or government programs currently in place.
I do not think it enhances individual human dignity to have the government be responsible for one's financial well-being in their old age. In fact, I think quite the opposite. It starts from the assumption, "I know better than you, and I'm going to take care of you. No, you don't get a choice in the matter."
And who are you to say what the real motive is behind school choice? I forget that along with your persistant racism goes telepathy into the mindset of 'white America'. Once again we are fortunate that Irami sits in judgement over the cracka, letting him know what the true meaning behind his actions and thoughts is.
The public education system is already failing vast numbers of students, all across America-but it's hardly their fault, since in my opinion their parents failed them much sooner. Over the years, greatly increasing proportions of money have been spent on public education, without proportional gains in across-the-board education.
Perhaps some Republicans think that maybe, just maybe, introducing that thing which induces excellence in the economic world-competition-will do the same in the educational world.
But I suppose it's more likely those white Americans simply have the audacity to have the most concern for their own children's education. Truly, it is offensive to individual human dignity for such an attitude to persist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, your statements about Irami I can't comment on but the SS issue is one that, while seen as a concern, is hardly addressed by Bush. Current recipients have heard "there will be no change" so the old woman who is living off the meager amount will continue to do so. Nothing helped there. And future old women better hope that the stock market doesn't go bust at about the time she is retiring or that meager amount will look wonderful.
This generation already has the ability to save on their own for retirement, even pre-tax and with assistance from their employer. 401k's aren't new and are ways to save towards retirement. The ones that don't get that benefit are ones in PT jobs or FT jobs where the employer doesn't offer such an investment package. Someone making $8/hour isn't going to be keeping any more under Bush's plan...it is just that their money will be going to benefit...big business. Yay! Hopefully this $8/hour employee will have the wherewithal to pick good stock options.
Putting the business model onto schools is silly. We can agree that schools are in trouble but simply putting the money out there to let big busines decide how it works is pretty dangerous. Big business gives us Wal-Marts, moving jobs overseas, and all sorts of shenanigans because the bottom line for business is not product...it is making money. The moment we put a kid's eduction second to the dollar is the moment where I lose the last bit of hope for the education system. In a competitive environment, that is exactly what will happen.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Find me a SC who is living on SS payments alone
See, this atitude about SS is the problem....SS was never intended to be teh only income a person retired on. It was intended to be a supplement to pensions and personal inverstments.
You aren't suppose to rely completely on SS, and it is unreasonable to expect to be able to do that.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Republican Spin Lords keep toting her name out as the great big boogie woman who is going to ruin us all, and the last great chance of the Democrats--because they know they can beat her.
So when it boils down to who they want the Democrats to run for President, they say Hillary, and hope that if enough people say it loud enough it will become true.
Secondly, I like the fact that Condi has proven sex or race are not iron walls to cage in people. These "Minority" labels can be over come, just as Gonzales has shown that poverty and his Minority label did not stop him from becoming a man of power and influence.
I just wish we could have those same icons proving success, without it appearing that the success of these minorities depends on ones ability to being a "Yes-man"(or Yes Woman) bowing to the rich white guy who has even more power.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wether or not you agree with her, I was wondering if Condi will be come the "Iron Lady" of this decade that Margaret Thatcher was.
You may not agree with them (though I was lucky enough to hear Margaret Thatcher speak once in person and it was a fabluous speech that Irami would have agreed with because she basically yelled at American students for not knowing their own history) but you've got to respect them for their resolution in the face of adversity.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
